The Radbruch Doctrine and the Cyclic Nature of Jurisprudence: From Legal Positivism to Moral Renewal
Nazi Germany's damage left jurisprudence to face a moral dilemma: could something that was lawful nonetheless be so unfair as to be illegal? Once a positivist, German legal scholar Gustav Radbruch responded to that query with his post-war theory, which is today referred to as the Radbruch Formula. He maintained that laws that are explicitly unjust completely lose their legal standing. This theory altered contemporary legal theory and prepared the ground for the famous 1958 Hart-Fuller Debate. Radbruch's moral norm was further illustrated by the Grudge Informer Case. In order to demonstrate how the Radbruch Doctrine changed legal thought and established that jurisprudence is a cyclical discipline that starts with moral ideals, travels through positivist detachment, and ultimately returns to its ethical foundation, this article explores the roots, philosophical effects, and judicial application of the doctrine.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.